Re: [textualcriticism] Rev 22:19
- My comment was directed at an eariler comment about checking the dependencies/independencies of the 3 MSS that say "book". I was not commenting on the content of the TR. My comment was intended to demonstrate that I think it is quite possible that those MSS could show some major differences and still have the same mistake in it simply because the word "book" is used so many times in the same sentence. Latin scribes accustomed to the Vulgate reading but copying in the less-familiar Greek tongue may have also been influenced by the Vulgate. They may have been influenced by the TR, which was influenced by the Vulgate. I was simply pointing out that there are multiple reasons that "tree" could have been subconsciously changed to "book" with or without the influence of the Vulgate or the TR involved.Joe Viel----- Original Message -----From: K. Martin HeideSent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 11:16 AMSubject: [textualcriticism] Rev 22:19
1. Funny Idea! Erasmus himself said explicitly several times, that he retranslated Rev 22:16-21 from the Latin, because his Greek msAs many times as the word "book" appears in Rev 22:19, I can believe that it all 3 happened happened subconsciouly.
lacked it. How can it have happened subconsciously?
2. The reading "book" for "tree" was the accepted reading of the already-in-print Latin Bible, i.e. of the official
Catholic Vulgate. Just take a look at the Gutenberg Bibel or any Latin Bible printed between 1455 and 1520: Virtually
every bible at that time read "book".----- Original Message -----From: mydogregae01Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:25 PMSubject: [textualcriticism] Re: Rev 22:19
--- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, "William W. Combs"
> The TR has "book" in Rev 22:19, instead of "tree." Some people I have
> read suggest there is no manuscript support for this reading. If I
> read Hoskier correct he says that mss 57, 141, and the margin of 119
> do read "book." Is this correct and is Hoskier reliable?
++++++++++++ +++++++++ +
Your good question concerning Rev. 22:19 deserves a good reply.
I am surprised that no one has yet replied (correction Kraus has!).
Perhaps some suspect
a TR/KJV argument to develope, and thus avoid replying; or
perhaps someone privately replied to you.
Hoskier is very good on the text of Revelation, and is reliable.
To date his work is still the fullest as far as the minuscules
are concerned, on the text of Revelation.
He lists 3 minuscules which have the reading adopted by
Stephanus in his 1550 edition: [as you listed]
57 (Tisch) for MS 296 circa XVI century - Paris
119 (Tisch) for MS 1075 circa XIV century - Mt. Athos
141 (Tisch) for MS 2049 circa XVI century - Athens
Hoskier himself already pointed to the fact that 57 is certainly a copy of a printed text, or at least of a manuscript which itself
was copied from a printed text (an edition / reprint of Erasmus). Several handwritten copies of printed texts are known from the
15th and 16th century, sometimes from even later times.
141: Hoskier argued, that 141 might be a sister-copy of Erasmus' only manuscript for the Revelation, the codex Reuchlin, but later
changed his mind after a real sister-copy of this codex, namely 208, had turned up. I collated 141 myself: it is certainly a copy of a printed text
(4th/5th edition of Erasmus). Jan Krans and myself exchanged views on that some time ago on this list.
119 has the reading BIBLIOU "booklet" (cf. former part of the verse; not BIBLOU "book" as Erasmus) , if I understand Hoskier right, only in the margin. (Does s.b. know more about 119 / Greg 1075?)
Sure, his readings usually are very accurate, but the manuscripts he cites are sometimes NOT
I have not access to any materials of these MSS, but until proven
otherwise, Hoskier's readings should be accepted.
Stephanus, in his 1550 edition shows the Complutensian (his "a")
and MS 82 (his "ie") as reading XULOU (tree), however he also
uses another manuscript (his "is" iota/stigma) which is now lost,
I assume that this lost MS MAY have read BIBLIOU (book).
Apparently Stephanus followed this lost manuscript here or
Erasmus, and wrote BIBLIOU.
Beza (1598) and the 1522 edition of Erasmus also print BIBLIOU.
It is most probable that Stephanus (and thence the TR) followed
the reading of Erasmus here. It is well known that Erasmus used
the Vulgate for a few of these verses in Rev. 22. And indeed, the
Vulgate (or rather, a fair number of Latin manuscripts) does read
"book" here in Rev. 22:19. The Bohairic also reads "book" here
(checked with Horner's edition).
So, taking stock of the above, we still have only 3 GREEK MSS
which support the reading of "book", and they are very late
minuscules. We have a few early Latin MSS which read "book"
- notably codex Fuldensis of ~ A.D. 545. The 3 Greek minuscules
should be closely studied for their particular idiosyncrasies
before one can pass judgment upon their values
In many printed Vulgate copies of that time (printed books between 1455 and 1520), you will find
(are any of them
affected by the Vulgate, are they carefully written/copied,
what other readings do they present et al)???
Despite the 3 late Greek MSS, and the Bohairic and Fuldensis, it
seems PROBABLE that an error crept into a few Greek MSS from a
Latin corruption. A Latin scribe mistakenly wrote "book" for
"tree" a "LIBRO" / "LIGNO" error.
the reading "libro" in the text, but the reading "ligno" in the margin, as a variant reading.
"book" in the Greek text here is certainly false.
Unfortunately, this Latin
scribal blunder was accepted by Erasmus, and hence found its
way into Stephanus and the TR, and ultimately the KJV.
99.9% of all Greek manuscripts correctly read: "tree".
The context of Rev. 22 can support either reading, but "tree"
seems best in my mind._
Mr. Gary S. Dykes
All the best,
- Jovial wrote:
>Are you kidding?<No.
> I'm not sure exactly what time periods Gaulic Latin evolved into Old French / Provencial, but I would say that it's probably rather safe to assume that the Old Latin had the biggest influence on that region.<Vulgar Latin as spoken and written in Gaul evolved into Old French and PROVENCAL, Gascon, and Occitan etc over the course of centuries. The first bit of Old French we have evidence of is mid-9th century, the Oaths of Strasbourg, though the language that we could Old French would obviously be a bit earlier.
But no, it is not safe to assume that it is Latin or VL Biblical texts that would be the biggest influence on Gaul in the second century CE. "Old Latin" as a linguistic designation refers to Latin of before 75 BCE, so "Old Latin" wouldn't be influencing Irenaeus in any case.
For one thing, we don't know quite when or where the various Vetus Latina translations began, but our first solid evidence for such translations are in North Africa with Tertullian and the Scitillan Martyrs, not in Italy, esp. Rome, nor in Gaul.
For a second thing, Gaul at this period was multi-lingual. The native Gaulish was still spoken and used, Latin was used for official functions and trade etc, and there were other Celtic speakers and Greeks. Irenaeus himself says he learned Gaulish with difficulty and seems to have preached in that language rather than in Latin. Further, the sixth century author, Gregory of Tours, when writing lives of the martyrs and saints for Gaul at this period (he believes Irenaeus a martyr)almost all those he describes have Greek names, a few with Latin names. Irenaeus wrote in Greek: all his writings have Greek as their original language. Taken together, this suggests that not only Irenaeus, but most of the Christian community which he knew were Greek, and if not Greek, knew Greek or spoke Gaulish, not Latin.
For a third thing, Irenaeus's native language is Greek. He's from Asia Minor. He knew the Bible, the LXX and the early Christian writings in Greek. Why, and for that matter how, would a native Greek speaker who already knew these texts in Greek suddenly jettison all his knowledge and his native tongue in favor of a different language and translation of the texts he already knew? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
And fourth, so far as I know, there isn't any evidence for Vetus Latina translations in Gaul at this period. It might be interesting as an exercise to compare the Latin translation of Irenaeus with VL readings when he cites Scripture, but ultimately that still would not demonstrate that Irenaeus himself knew and used Vetus Latina translations.
>> Vulgate was after Irenaeus, but it was influenced by many of the same Old Latin readings as those in Lyon would have had access to.<<Not at all. By Jerome's day, 2 centuries after Irenaeus, there would have been a lot more Latin translations and they would have been disseminated more widely, particularly in the West since by this time the empire had pretty well split between Latin and Greek speakers. This is what made Jerome so valuable: he knew and could speak and read both languages. That's a rather significant change in the linguistic map of the empire and so reading the situation in Jerome's lifetime back into Irenaeus' is a problematic anachronism.
>>One should be open to multiple possibilities when consulting how Church 'fathers' quote scripture, including the possibility they are paraphrasing from incomplete memory.<<
One should also be open to following the evidence, and certainly nothing I've said on this subject should suggest to you that I'm not aware that many writers paraphrase or cite from memory, sometimes an incomplete or imperfect one.
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze